Re: americans
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:26 pm
Page 2 of 3
Re: americans
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:39 pm
how many stones you weight m8?
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
Re: americans
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:43 pm
Funny. Was just reading about Dozenalism the other day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/alexs ... yranny-ten
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/alexs ... yranny-ten
Re: americans
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:49 pm
^ha yes! i hope that we can move beyond ten based number systems, now that we understand higher math....
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:00 am
I've met 4 people in my life who work(ed) for JPL. None of them were americans
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:02 am
How the f*ck does that make anything easier?? It’s confusing as h3llalphacat wrote:Funny. Was just reading about Dozenalism the other day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/alexs ... yranny-ten
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:54 am
only because your mind is trapped in the metric system "that makes so much sense" 
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:47 am
If we do that I think we should keep ten, eleven, and twelve the same name but give them a different symbolsalphacat wrote:Funny. Was just reading about Dozenalism the other day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/alexs ... yranny-ten
considering we already add the suffix at thirteen.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:26 am
In mathematics and computer science, hexadecimal (also base 16, or hex) is a positional numeral system with a radix, or base, of 16. It uses sixteen distinct symbols, most often the symbols 0–9 to represent values zero to nine, and A, B, C, D, E, F (or alternatively a–f) to represent values ten to fifteen. For example, the hexadecimal number 2AF3 is equal, in decimal, to (2 × 16^3) + (10 × 16^2) + (15 × 16^1) + (3 × 16^0), or 10995.
Each hexadecimal digit represents four binary digits (bits), and the primary use of hexadecimal notation is a human-friendly representation of binary-coded values in computing and digital electronics. One hexadecimal digit represents a nibble, which is half of an octet (8 bits). For example, byte values can range from 0 to 255 (decimal), but may be more conveniently represented as two hexadecimal digits in the range 00 to FF. Hexadecimal is also commonly used to represent computer memory addresses.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:15 pm
Efrafa11 wrote:If we do that I think we should keep ten, eleven, and twelve the same name but give them a different symbolsalphacat wrote:Funny. Was just reading about Dozenalism the other day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/alexs ... yranny-ten
considering we already add the suffix at thirteen.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:34 pm
And you looked good doing from nearly a sheppey away!Johnlenham wrote:nearly spat my coffee outgrillis wrote:my car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way i likes it
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:37 pm
it doesnt really matter what base we use that much (as long as its not something impractical like base 2).fractal wrote:how many stones you weight m8?
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
the point is that it's a standardized, logical system rather than 12s and 3s and 5280s.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:51 pm
that's not true when it comes to computing. the base does matter man. it helps for it to be logical math-wise, not "logically" based on our own preconceptions of what numbers arePhigure wrote:it doesnt really matter what base we use that much (as long as its not something impractical like base 2).fractal wrote:how many stones you weight m8?
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
the point is that it's a standardized, logical system rather than 12s and 3s and 5280s.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 9:57 pm
It's only standardized and logical because it's what you're taught from birth.Phigure wrote:it doesnt really matter what base we use that much (as long as its not something impractical like base 2).fractal wrote:how many stones you weight m8?
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
the point is that it's a standardized, logical system rather than 12s and 3s and 5280s.
If you were taught hex or binary in school those would be what you considered standardized and logical, while base 10 would seem foreign.
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:06 pm
well that's what im saying about how it doesnt really matter what base we use. if we had grown up using base 7, 8, 9, etc then those would obviously seem more logical to usdeadly habit wrote:It's only standardized and logical because it's what you're taught from birth.Phigure wrote:it doesnt really matter what base we use that much (as long as its not something impractical like base 2).fractal wrote:how many stones you weight m8?
lol @ 10 based number systems... "it's how many fingers and toes I got"
if we, as a species, had 8 fingers and toes, we would have probably used a base 8 number system #realtalk
the point is that it's a standardized, logical system rather than 12s and 3s and 5280s.
If you were taught hex or binary in school those would be what you considered standardized and logical, while base 10 would seem foreign.
i'm not saying it's more logical because it's base 10, it's logical because it's not based off of ratios that some people pulled out of their ass (like 12s and 3s and 5280s)
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:11 pm
I'm having a hard time following you on this one. Do just mean impractical for humans? Because it makes perfect sense for base 2 numbering being the basis for computer language.Phigure wrote: it doesnt really matter what base we use that much (as long as its not something impractical like base 2).
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:13 pm
for computer language definitely, but for day to day use, it's a bit impractical
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:14 pm
phigure, i disagree. not just any system will do. 2 and 8 based number systems are perfect for computations, look at the rise of hexi
edit- ah, i see what you are saying. i do feel though, that as the singularity approaches, we will begin to use these systems more and more frequently
edit- ah, i see what you are saying. i do feel though, that as the singularity approaches, we will begin to use these systems more and more frequently
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:16 pm
this book actually explains why it would be more practical for us to move to a 2, 8 or 16 base system, as humans
http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Com ... 0735611319
http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Com ... 0735611319
Re: americans
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:42 pm